I’d really like to see the courts call them on that nonsense. Generally speaking, I think the courts should be very skeptical of law enforcement exemptions. Law professor Nelson Lund wrote a paper on this topic, arguing that the Courts should look at police use when determining whether an arm was protected. I couldn’t agree more. I strongly believe civilians should be able to own anything cops can own. You can’t argue a weapon is for mass murder, or a weapon is unsafe, and then turn around and say the police need them for self-defense and they aren’t unsafe in the hands of cops. That’s transparently about crapping on civil rights rather than about public safety.

11 Responses to “No Glock 42 for California”

I love the “LEO Exemption”. Make no mistake folks, the DNC (aka) CPUSA, sees the police as their hit squad, and will stop at nothing to ensure that their little KGB, SS, Khmer Rouge, and Stasi hit squads are able to put down their opposition without any resistance. Dan Bongino has aid it himself that Obama sees all of the arms of the government as his personal toys. This is deadly, considering our dictator in theif has the mind set of a Pol Pot or Mao Zedong. Dinesh D’Souza and Bob McDonnell have all been indicted on what any person with a little instinct would know as trumped up charges. First it was just IRS intimidation, then actual arrests and semi-physical suppression of opposition figure heads. How much longer until this country has a Tiananmen Square Massacre? This Soviet Regime has tested the waters up until just before this kind of point. Look for the feds to try and revoke the manufacturing licenses of S&W and Ruger if they cease and desist firearms sales to California LE. They are, after all, just personal armies for the communist democrats in that filthy state, and are just a loyal, blue state apparatus of a personal army for the DNC(CPUSA). Obama and his boys have the Chinese on their side anyway, so Norinco would be happy to supply CALEO.

“I strongly believe civilians should be able to own anything cops can own. You can’t argue a weapon is for mass murder, or a weapon is unsafe, and then turn around and say the police need them for self-defense and they aren’t unsafe in the hands of cops.”

Obviously you extend this to Title I firearms, but what about Title II firearms?

I get the rationale for the LEO exemption, I vehemently disagree but I get the argument. The exemption that pisses me off is the Hollywood exemptions for things like SBRs, full auto, etc. Making films and TV shows is NOT more important than our Constitutional rights.

If a full-auto machine gun is useful for police officers for self-defense purposes, then it should be useful for a civilian as well.

If a full-auto machine gun /isn’t/ useful for civilians, then it shouldn’t be useful for police officers.

I was unconvinced that machine guns would be useful for self-defense until I read a story where one was used for self-defense, in a situation where it was used tactic-appropriately (basically, suppression fire, to convince the guys in the gun store that it would be best if they kept their heads down until the police arrived). In general, though, I’m willing to live with a machine gun ban until the political will is available to remove it; I am /not/ comfortable with allowing police to have machine guns in the meantime, unless doing so will open the door for civilian machine gun use.